RSS
Copyright Finally Getting Around To Destroying Player Piano Music... One Century Late
from the bye-bye-culture dept
If you're a student of copyright history, you know that the 1909 Copyright Act in the US was driven in large part due to fear over a new-fangled technology that was going to make copying music so easy that musicians wouldn't be able to make any money any more. Yes, that's right, that dastardly player piano, with its automated paper piano rolls that could play songs without musicians. The fear was so great that lots of lobbying was done of Congress, leading to the 1909 Copyright Act, which brought about compulsory licensing on mechanical rights. Of course, within about a decade, the infatuation with the player piano was gone, but compulsory mechanical rights were stuck in US law and no one ever thought to question if they were really needed.
I'm reminded of this bit of history thanks to this story, brought to my attention by Glyn Moody, about how Jon "Maddog" Hall wanted to try to preserve some deteriorating piano rolls, but discovered (much to his annoyance) that copyright may be getting in the way. He points out that many old player piano rolls are deteriorating, and the small group of remaining collectors are hoping to preserve the music by digitizing them. Easier said than done... turns out that Hall got confused about the difference between the copyright on the composition and the copyright on the performance, and his attempt to save a more modern recording of a public domain song -- even though that piano roll was deteriorating -- was not allowed. After contacting one company that still makes piano rolls, he was told that he was better off not preserving the rolls in his collection:
We ended up agreeing that if I made an mp3 recording of less than 30 seconds, off an old roll, from a company that was completely out of business, kept it completely for my own use and locked up so no one else could hear it, that I probably would not be sued. He also begged me not to use any of his company rolls in this task, as he really did not want to have to sue me. I thanked him for his time.It only took 100 years, but it looks like copyright law in the US is finally doing what it originally intended to do: destroying piano rolls.
33 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Big News: Germany Says It Won't Sign ACTA [Update: ... Yet]
- Do The Differences Between Software Piracy And Media Piracy Matter?
- Latvia Joins Countries Putting The Brakes On ACTA Approval
- DailyDirt: It's Time To Open Up Access To Academic Journals
- Major Label-Owned Vevo Caught Publicly Streaming NFL Game Off Of 'Rogue Site'
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
So.
I can't wait for the lobbying efforts against brain-to-brain neural transfers of data, myself.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ridiculous US Sound copyright
Then again I fail to see how the copyright holder benefits if the outcome is that all copies of the work are lost....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
US Copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous US Sound copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Ridiculous US Sound copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So.
(And the legal system as an OS would not run.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Proving my point
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100303/1638438400.shtml
http://techdirt.com/articles/201005 11/0657169375.shtml
Backup copies are frequently ruled as illegal, even if for personal use, even if obscene safeguards are put in place to prevent them being distributed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Proving my point
I'm sure the dead guys/gals who created these works don't mind.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Piano Roll Music
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So.
We tried that with the U.S. Constitution release version 1.0. Turns out the lawyers filed suit for discrimination.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
100 Years
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
limited time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So.
http://www.usnowfilm.com/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Does not make it right, just means the courts screwed the pooch again.
Hopefully the courts are finally growing a brain on how screwed up The DMCA really is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Be careful what you wish for
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 100 Years
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Oh well...
Because once a law has gone so far as to prohibit even what is obviously the morally correct thing to do, some people will perceive it as completely broken, and as something which should be ignored. Not only that, some people will feel that it should be openly defied. These people will respect the law in question only so far as to allow them to defy it even more (for instance, respecting it only enough to avoid being arrested, because being arrested would make it harder to defy it).
This means that, paradoxically, making a law stronger in theory can make it weaker in practice.
Or, as popular culture would put it, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Agreement of two individuals on a dubious interpretation of the law does not make that interpretation true.
...if I made an mp3 recording of less than 30 seconds, off an old roll, from a company that was completely out of business, kept it completely for my own use and locked up so no one else could hear it, that I probably would not be sued.
If he did that, and he never told anybody about it, and didn't advertise it, then how in the world would he be sued?
Unfortunately, no interpretation of ANY civil law can give you absolute safety against being sued. I am, right here as I sit, under the constant threat that my rich neighbor will sue me for broadcasting evil tinfoil-hat-penetrating radio waves through his carefully designed helmet and into his brain for the purpose of damaging his libido. CONSTANT THREAT! What, then, does "maddog" Hall want? Indemnification of the sort he desires is available to no man.
Additionally, is his interest here preservation, or dissemination? Either way, someone who is "a Free Software person and a follower of the issues around copyright" would certainly be intimately familiar with section 108 of copyright law, which contains specific exemptions specifically for preservation in cases like this. Funny he doesn't mention it. It's a convenient section to omit or forget about when you want to make arguments that copyright is responsible for the destruction of culture.
Now this section allows things that are a little different than maddog would like: he would not, under section 108, be able to distribute the work far and wide on the Internet (as he wants to).
However, he is neither allowed to keep it solely for himself and his private enjoyment: he can make a copy for lending and three for preservation, provided the lending copy is made available to the public or researchers in general. If he did not want to operate as an archive (making the lending copy available himself), he could have partnered with a librarian or archivist. Having known several librarians, and dated one, I can tell you that it should not be difficult to find an archivist or librarian willing to partner on an issue of preservation of knowledge that would otherwise be lost.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just do it...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Copyrights expire...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Have to sue??
What the hell is wrong with this person?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment